In Science
299, 1523 - 1524, (March 2003), Michael Ruse investigates the idea that evolution
operates as a kind of secular religion. He traces the three
stages of the history of Evolution:

the conversion of evolution from a pseudo-science to a real science
by Charles Darwin's proposal for a testable mechanism for the process.

the use of evolution by Huxley and other reformers in a strictly
non-scientific way, to support the notion of progress towards virtue,
where evolution was used an example for how things progressed from chaos
to order, from simplicity to complexity, from primitive origins to virtue.
In this stage, cathedrals to the evolutionary 'religion' were
erected, such as the grand halls of the Natural History Museum in London
(see above)

the triumphant scientific development of the modern synthesis by
mathematicians and empiricists who integrated genetics with natural
selection to form the basis of neo-Darwinism, but who, Ruse claims,
were originally attracted to evolution because of its quasi-religious
aspects.

As a consequence, in the third phase, in the 1940s and 1950s,
there were two sorts of study of evolution: very professional empirical work
and, in parallel, works using evolution as a basis for moral exhortations
and calls to action. Ruse gives the example of George Gaylord Simpson
with his straight scientific text 'Tempo and Mode in Evolution' in 1944, followed
by the popular 'The Meaning of Evolution' in 1949 which included material justifying
the claim that the American way was superior to communism.

Ruse claims that this continues to today: evolution as straight
professional empirical science in parallel with, sometimes from the same authors,
evolution as secular religion. Ruse's thesis relies on those scientists who
wish to use evolution as a means to undermine theology and replace it with the
'religion' of evolution. He uses E O Wilson as an example and quotes his
'On Human Nature'.

But ultimately, Ruse defends the science of evolution against
the claims of creationists that it is simply a secular religion. He concludes
the essay as follows:

So, what does our history tell us? Three things. First, if the claim is that all
contemporary evolutionism is merely an excuse to promote moral and societal
norms, this is simply false. Today's professional evolutionism is no more a
secular religion than is industrial chemistry. Second, there is indeed a
thriving area of more popular evolutionism, where evolution is used to underpin
claims about the nature of the universe, the meaning of it all for us humans,
and the way we should behave. I am not saying that this area is all bad or that
it should be stamped out. I am all in favor of saving the rainforests. I am
saying that this popular evolutionism--often an alternative to religion--exists.
Third, we who cherish science should be careful to distinguish when we are doing
science and when we are extrapolating from it, particularly when we are teaching
our students. If it is science that is to be taught, then teach science and
nothing more. Leave the other discussions for a more appropriate time.

Michael Ruse, Science
299, 1523 - 1524

So, according to Ruse, the creationists are ultimately wrong in their claim
that evolutionary science represents only a secular religion and nothing more.